Aug 26, 2009 10:03pm
Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung holds the copyright to this film, as well as to almost all other German films produced prior to 1945http://filmrestoration.net/doku.php?id=en:showroom:metropolis_2
But according to wiki it is PD in the USA now
Maybe video-seller can understand the legaleze
Golan v. Gonzales is a case originally filed in 2001 challenging the constitutionality of restoring copyright of foreign works that were previously in the United States public domain by the United States Congress. The main argument was that restoring copyright violates the "limited times" clause of the United States Constitution.
After the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the Colorado District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge to that act in 2004. The remaining constitutional challenge to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year.
Among the works related to this case were:
* Metropolis (1927)
* The Third Man (1949)
* The works of Igor Stravinsky
* The works of J.R.R. Tolkien
* Several works of H.G. Wells, including the film Things to Come (1936)
The case was heard by District Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock and was decided by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in 2005. It was appealed at the Tenth Circuit.
On September 4, 2007, Judge Robert H. Henry of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the CTEA claim, as foreclosed by Eldred, and the district court's holding that § 514 of the URAA does not exceed the limitations inherent in the Copyright Clause.
The Appeals Court therefore remanded the case to the district court after finding that § 514 "has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression" and therefore must be subject to First Amendment review.
The case was then reconsidered as Golan v. Holder. In a holding published on April 3, 2009, Judge Babcock reversed his earlier finding that the First Amendment was not applicable to resurrecting foreign copyright claims. The position now is that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests." Judge Babcock found that aspects of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which brought some works whose copyright had lapsed back under copyright, thus violates the First Amendment. However, further appeals by copyright owners are expected.
This post was modified by SpaceFan on 2009-08-27 05:03:40